The use of the Nuclear Bomb to bring an end to WWII stands as one of the most controversial and significant decisions in modern history raising the question, Was the detonation of the Nuclear Bomb Justified? The Nuclear Bomb was developed as part of the Manhattan project by Robert Oppenheimer. Its purpose was to force a Japanese surrender, with the subsequent ending of the war. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, marked the first and only use of nuclear weapons in warfare.This raised ethical and moral questions about the human and environmental consequences of their deployment, fuelling debates on disarmament, non-proliferation as well as the concept of mutually assured destruction. This cardinal decision on how to end the war plagued leaders of the …show more content…
Some believe that the bomb was the most efficient and ‘least abhorrent’ way to end WWII, while others believe the nuclear bomb was a tool used to influence the post-war world order and was completely unjustifiable. Central to the discourse surrounding the Nuclear Bombings are the contrasting viewpoints of traditionalists and revisionists, each offering distinct interpretations of the bomb's necessity and justifiability. The detonation of the nuclear bomb is a historical topic of debate. The traditionalist position is that the bomb was necessary to end the war. This is epitomised by President Harry Truman and his quote that “The atom bomb was no “great decision.” It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness.” This reflects the prevailing view among military officials and policymakers at the time. Truman's opinion conveys the belief that the use of nuclear weapons was a justifiable tool to end the war, serving as a conclusive tool, forcing a Japanese surrender and bringing an end to